All things freshwater: news, analysis, humor, reviews, and commentary from Michael E. 'Aquadoc' Campana, hydrogeologist, hydrophilanthropist, Professor of Hydrogeology and Water Resources Management in the Geography Program of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences (CEOAS) at Oregon State University and Emeritus Professor of Hydrogeology at the University of New Mexico. He is Past President of the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), Past Chair of the Scientists & Engineers Division of the National Ground Water Association (NGWA), Past President of the nonprofit NGWA Foundation and President and Founder the nonprofit Ann Campana Judge Foundation, an organization involved with WaSH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) in Central America. He serves on the Steering Committee of the Global Water Partnership (GWP). CYA statement: with the exception of guest posts, the opinions expressed herein are solely those of Michael E. Campana and not those of CEOAS, Oregon State University, ACJF, AWRA, NGWA, GWP, my spouse Mary Frances, or any other person or organization.

Texas Agriculture Law BlogDon't let the name fool you - there are lots of water issues in agriculture and Tiffany Dowell of Texas A&M University does a fabulous job with this important Internet resource. Give it a read - I do every day!

The Way of WaterDr. Jennifer Veilleux records her fieldwork, research, and thoughts about water resources development and management, indigenous rights, ethics, and a host of other issues.

Thirsty in SuburbiaGayle Leonard documents things from the world of water that make us smile: particularly funny, amusing and weird items on bottled water, water towers, water marketing, recycling, the art-water nexus and working.

This Day in Water HistoryMichael J. 'Mike' McGuire, engineer extraordinaire, NAE member, and author of 'The Chlorine Revolution', blogs about historical happenings in the fields of drinking water and wastewater keyed to calendar dates.

Watershed Moments: Thoughts from the HydrosphereFrom Sarah Boon - rediscovering her writing and editing roots after 13 years, primarily as an environmental scientist. Her writing centres around creative non-fiction, specifically memoir and nature writing. The landscapes of western Canada are her main inspiration.

WaterWiredAll things freshwater: news, comment, publications and analysis from hydrogeologist Michael E. Campana, Professor at Oregon State University and Technical Director of the AWRA.

Friday, 27 March 2020

Friend and colleague Lisa Beutler is WFH like a lot of us. Here is her cat's response:

Nice kitty....See today's quote.

***********************************************************

The links below represent the week's water news as represented by my Tweets. I do not pretend that this survey is a comprehensive survey of the water news; it's my attempt to keep my readers informed to the best of my ability and available time.

Scroll down to 'Positions Open' and 'Previous Weeks' Positions Open' to see the jobs. All my individual job Tweets are archived at #JobWaWi. Previous weekly summaries are archived at: #WaWiNews or click here.

It's @natureBriefing - 27 March 2020. Discover that Neanderthals enjoyed a nice bit of fish and some dolphin for dinner, why the inventor of the H-index says it can have “severe unintended negative consequences” and hear the UK prime minister has #COVID19https://tinyurl.com/vcrnfe4

It's @natureBriefing 25 March 2020. New York City will start treating #COVID19 patients with blood of survivors, learn that the outbreak in Italy went undetected for weeks, discover how running a quantum computer is like solving a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded https://bit.ly/2UgC3YG

It's @nature Briefing - 24 March 2020. Today we discover the oldest known bum, explore the diagnostic tests available now and in the works for #coronavirus, and weigh two approaches to solving the global challenge of climate change. https://bit.ly/2xrMxeD

E-Newsletters and E-NewspaperIt's @natureBriefing - 27 March 2020. Discover that Neanderthals enjoyed a nice bit of fish and some dolphin for dinner, why the inventor of the H-index says it can have “severe unintended negative consequences” and hear the UK prime minister has #COVID19https://tinyurl.com/vcrnfe4

It's @natureBriefing - 26 March 2020. Heartbreaking stories of people whose long-awaiting drug trials are on hold, learn that summertime jet stream in the S. Hemisphere seems to be getting back on track, what cruise-ship outbreaks reveal about #COVID19https://bit.ly/2UjOlPW

It's @natureBriefing 25 March 2020. New York City will start treating #COVID19 patients with blood of survivors, learn that the outbreak in Italy went undetected for weeks, discover how running a quantum computer is like solving a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded https://bit.ly/2UgC3YG

It's @nature Briefing - 24 March 2020. Today we discover the oldest known bum, explore the diagnostic tests available now and in the works for #coronavirus, and weigh two approaches to solving the global challenge of climate change. https://bit.ly/2xrMxeD

"Though the global water crisis is starting to get more attention,groundwater is often forgotten,despite making up 99% of the planet’s liquid freshwater.Many people still perceive it as pristine when in fact it is threatened by human activity.”- J.A. Cherry

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and THAT is the basic building block of the universe."-Frank Zappa

"We drive into the future using only our rearview mirror." -- Marshall McLuhan

"I'm going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes." - former college basketball player

“Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” - George Washington

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S. Thompson

Thursday, 26 March 2020

A few days ago I received an email announcing a new endeavor, the Groundwater Project.The following is from the site.

About

A NOBLE PROJECT

Groundwater is the source of drinking water for nearly half of the global population and supplies much of the world's irrigation water. Groundwater is complex, out-of-sight and mostly out-of-mind. The Groundwater Project (GW-Project) is urgently needed to ensure that society achieves the exceedingly difficult task of scientifically-informed, sustainable management and protection of groundwater.

The GW-Project has its roots in 2015 after Cathryn Ryan at the University of Calgary initiated the transfer of rights for the famous Groundwater textbook (Freeze & Cherry, 1979) back to their authors. To advance the state of the science worldwide the authors then agreed to provide free downloads of the original text and translations through the Hydrogeologists Without Borders website. This laudable initiative provided the inspiration for the much larger GW-Project aimed at updating and largely expanding the coverage of the original book. As of today, more than 20 instititutions are partnering with us and many others are on their way. The GW-Project was initiated in 2017 to cover nearly all aspects of groundwater relevant to both developed and developing countries.

The goals of the GW-Project are to publish educational materials, online and free-of-charge. The GW-Project will fill large voids in educational groundwater publishing becoming the global standard for synthesized groundwater science. The first iteration will be in English, followed soon after by other languages. Many chapters will be layered to support understanding at both introductory and advanced levels with clickable links to equation derivations, worked problems, public domain educational reports, videos of lab demonstrations, field methods, and lectures. Although encyclopedic in scope, the GW-Project is focused on knowledge synthesis to achieve understanding, underpin classroom teaching and facilitate self-education. The GW-Project aims to provide explanations from experts who are so advanced in their grasp of complex topics that they are able to convey ideas in an impressively simple form. Currently, more than 200 volunteer scientists and engineers from 23 countries on six continents are involved in the preparation of ebook chapters while the search for more participants continues. Over 500 chapters, organized in over 60 knowledge domains, will be prepared over the next few years.

Many of the contributors are senior internationally recognized experts. A priority of the GW-Project is to capture, while still possible, knowledge and key insights from this senior generation. The GW-Project will also serve as an electronic archive for old, but still insightful groundwater reports from government and other grey literature not readily accessible, or in jeopardy of being lost. In addition, the GW-Project will report on the latest advances in groundwater science and technologies to quickly disseminate new knowledge around the globe, with emphasis on the information needs of developing countries. The electronic format was selected because materials will be updated and re-published as improvements are made and as global contributions expand.

The not-for-profit GW-Project will fill large voids in educational groundwater publishing, becoming the global standard for synthesized groundwater science.

With the help of hundreds of volunteers, the Groundwater Project contributes to a better world. Be part of this noble project. Join us.

Humanity faces unprecedented challenges today. Our rapidly growing population and the demand for higher living standards are putting enormous pressure on our planet. Abundant and clean freshwater resources have been taken for granted, and groundwater, being invisible to human eyes, is a particular case in point. Many people have the misconception that the groundwater supply is infinite. This profound unawareness of the origin and fate of groundwater, compounded by our increasing appetite to withdraw more groundwater and the need to dispose of more waste, is the cause of rapidly growing problems associated with groundwater quantity and quality. Examples of groundwater over-exploitation and contamination appear in the news media nearly every day.

In writing the GW-Project, we truthfully and honestly tell the readers what we know as scientists. The imbalance of the inputs and outputs of our natural resources over time is an important concept, but it has been a privileged knowledge for the few with education in earth history. This should not be the case. If more world citizens can grasp this concept, the potential for conservative management will be higher. A mission of the GW-Project is to raise the next generation to understand: where our water resources come from; that life on Earth depends on those resources; and how precious the resources are simply because it took so very long for them to become what they are today.

The fields of groundwater management, assessment, and remediation technologies were extensively developed during the past decades and are now available to help create a better environment for future generations. The GW-Project is aimed at raising awareness of this problem, but most importantly, aims to educate citizens on how to best adjust their behavior to prevent the damages produced by lack of knowledge. One of the most important aspects of the GW-Project is to provide better training for technicians, professionals, and scientists to more adequately maintain the health of the planet.

With the goal of educating the world citizens, the GW-Project is aimed at a global readership by presenting topics that are important not only to affluent countries but also to developing nations in the most remote corners of the planet. Chapters issued first in English will be translated quickly to several other languages so that the knowledge provided by the GW-Project will reach nearly all parts of the globe that have internet access via computers and mobile phones.

Included in the email about the GW-Project there was an announcement that Dr. John A. Cherry, one of the world's foremost groundwater scientists, had been awarded the 2020 Stockholm Water Prize, often considered the 'water Nobel Prize'. Not only is this an magnificent tribute to John but a recognition of the profession of hydrogeology and the importance of groundwater. And he's a terribly nice guy as well. We have worked together in Hydrogeologists Without Borders.

He is also the person behind the creation of the GW-Project.Both his head and his heart are in the right place. Bless you, John!

"Though the global water crisis is starting to get more attention,groundwater is often forgotten,despite making up 99% of the planet’s liquid freshwater.Many people still perceive it as pristine when in fact it is threatened by human activity.”- John A. Cherry

A few months ago I was asked to present my thoughts about what scientists can do to reverse the decline of public trust in the policy impartiality of scientists. The importance of good science is broadly accepted across all political ideologies, but the level of trust in scientists (as separate from science) has probably never been lower. Here is the transcript of that talk presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, March 6, 2020, Bend, Oregon:

I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up this session: “Communicating Science Across Different Domains.” Yes, it is certainly a fitting topic for all of us — and based on the range of perspectives we’ve heard this morning — it reinforces its timeliness. Further — these days — given the privileged standing afforded science in the legal and policy world — and the potential for its misuse — both intentional and unintentional — it is absolutely critical for all of us all “to get the science question right.”

OK — my specific assignment today is to answer this question: How should scientists assure that they are sticking to science — and not drifting into policy advocacy?

I am very sure that each of you frequently see examples of “advocacy masquerading as science.” I know I do — every day! And — for those of us who are scientists — and those of us who work at interface of science – policy – and management — how do we avoid this?

Let me start with a simple “role playing” exercise.

First ― imagine that you are now in the spotlight — having been summoned to the state capitol to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon State Senate. Great career opportunity!

Second ― imagine that the Committee is faced with a contentious question: whether they should officially support — or oppose — construction of a dam designed to store water to help alleviate August droughts. And — be assured — dams are always politically controversial!

Third ― you are a scientist who has studied in great detail this particular proposed dam. In short — you are indisputably a scientific expert on the topic.

What is the proper role for you – a scientist? This is not trick question — but it is also not a simple one.

Why exactly did Darwin call for scientists to develop a Heart of Stone? For sure — today his advice might seem a bit passe in this era of trigger warnings — safe spaces — and postmodernism! But — what exactly are the alternatives to a heart of stone idea? — and why did Darwin not support these?

At a basic level — legislators — policy makers — and the public — expect scientists to even-handedly present scientific information relevant to the question under consideration. Seems simple enough! And — it is hard to argue against this expectation — this idealized view that you heard way back in Political Science 101 — right?

But — more fundamentally — what exactly — is scientific information? And — equally important — what information is not science? In short — what is this thing everyone casually labels as “science?” After all — relatively speaking — the notion of science is only a few hundred years old — at least it has only been broadly popular for a few hundred years. And — for sure — there are many other ways to acquire information — and indeed science is only one.

Francis Bacon popularized the basic principles of the “scientific method” several hundred years ago. This is the reason why modern science is sometimes referred to as “Baconian Science.”

To be considered scientific information — it must have 4 characteristics. In philosophy — as described in their often opaque — even cerebral — philosophical jargon — they are called the “big 4.”

First, the information must be rational — that is — it relies on the senses. Second, it must be acquired in a systematic way — a path that is clearly explained. Third, it must be testable — others can evaluate the results — it is not based on faith. Fourth, the results must be reproducible — others following the same procedures and methodologies will come up with the same answer. If the results cannot be reproduced — it is back to the drawing board!

But — there are other kinds of knowledge — and these are not better — or worse — but they are not science. For example — knowledge gained through experience is ubiquitous — but it is not science. A common example is fishermen’s knowledge accumulated after years on the water — or perhaps passed down over generations based on a sort of collective experience.

Most definitely — experiential knowledge may be a terrific source of information — but it does not possess the 4 essential characteristics of science.

Think back to Darwin’s time — the dominant faith affecting science was what might be called the classical Christian view of creation. These days — in my experience — the dominant faith in the areas of science that I work — is what is often called “Green Religion.” In its simplest formulation — this faith assumes that natural ecosystems — those undisturbed by humans — are inherently superior to human-altered ones. And — applying a similar theological litmus test — native species are a priori superior to non-native ones.

Don’t get me wrong — there is absolutely nothing inappropriate — or appropriate — with religious or faith-based postulates — but they are outside the purview of science.

But in Darwin’s time — it was not Green Religion — but rather Christian theology that conflicted with the scientific method. In Darwin’s time — scientists were expected to accept up front the creationist view of the origin of species — and most did so voluntarily. But — Darwin argued — do your research — test your hypotheses against the observable facts — draw your conclusions. Stop there! Do not presuppose anything! In short — as uncomfortable as it might be — Darwin encouraged scientists to develop a heart of stone.

But even if a scientist follows Darwin’s advice to the letter — that scientist must be trusted. Thus — managers — policy makers — and especially the public — would might like to assume that a scientist is presenting straight — unbiased facts and interpretations. But in reality — the question is always there — is that scientist sticking to the science — or is he slanting the science to cleverly push a particular policy preference? As a practical matter — if a reader or listener trusts a scientist — that reader or listener will almost certainly accept the veracity of what is being presented by that scientist.

OK — the central question still remains — are scientists trusted by the public these days? In essence, given that trust is essential for scientists to play a useful role in policy making and management — what do the national polls show?

First — the good news — there have been a lot of polling done on the trust question. Now the bad news — no poll that I could find addressed fisheries — or any other aspect of natural resource management. The closest discipline I could find was “environmental science” — for sure not a perfect fit — but it will have to do.

OK — to what extent does the public trust scientists on the topic of environmental issues? The results? In a Washington Post/ABC national poll — 40% — 4 in 10 — said they place little or no trust in the impartiality of scientists. But — even more disturbing to me — the other 60% were not all that supportive — they were lukewarm in their level of trust of scientists.

In another more recent national poll — this one by the PEW Research Center — barely a third of the respondents said environmental scientists provided fair and accurate information all — or most of the time.

Why such a low level of trust? We can speculate about what has caused this loss of trust — and many people have. Regardless — there are some things that scientists themselves can do to help rebuild trust.

The first thing that we need to do is to eliminate “stealth policy advocacy.”

The second is to stamp out normative science from all aspects of the scientific enterprise.

Now — the stealthy part — normative science is very similar in appearance to regular or traditional science — but it has an embedded or hidden policy preference. And the challenging part — it is often very difficult to pick up on this embedded policy preference!

Don’t be so sure that you are not at risk for normative science. Why? Detecting normative science is not as easy as it might appear. After all — what is being presented:

Looks like regular science

Sounds like regular science

Is offered by people who appear to be “scientists”

Even experienced policy makers and managers can be deceived! What chance does the general public have?

Let me circle back to the example I started with — the proposal to build a water supply dam — and the proper role of scientists in the decision-making process. Let’s have a little more role playing — imagine that you are a world expert in some ecological discipline. You have been assigned to a blue ribbon team of similarly elite scientists. Your job is to determine the likely ecological consequences of building a dam on this river.

OK — exactly how would you describe the scientific results to that Senate Committee — or to the public?

Would you be tempted to use the term “degradation” to describe the river with the dam? If you do — you have slipped into normative science. Why? — because you have made an assumption that a free flowing river is preferable to a dammed one. Perhaps it is better policy-wise — but not better scientifically — just different — a value judgment that others should make — not scientists.

Or — you could take the exact same scientific information and label the river with the dam as “improved.” After all — it will provide badly needed water in late summer — but the relative importance of that goal is a political determination — a value judgment — not a choice for scientists to make. Again — the science is the same — the only thing that has changed is that you have embedded a different policy preference. No other change!

This is so common these days that many listeners will not pick up on it! How should scientists report these results? My answer — scientists should use terminology that does not presuppose a value judgment — nor presuppose a policy preference.

In short — in this example — I suggest using the word “alteration” as being much more policy neutral. Using “alteration” in this example does not imply that either state of the ecosystem is preferred policy-wise.

Let me wrap up — what should scientists do — my recommendation — play the science straight up — do not build in subtle policy preferences. Be alert. Test your wording for signs of policy bias.

For sure — there are temptations aplenty to co-opt scientists — mostly they come from policy advocates and politicians. Whatever the temptation — avoid falling into the trap of stealth policy advocacy. Leave the advocacy to advocates — stick to science.

And remember Charles Darwin’s advice — he was dead-on all those years ago — a scientist needs a “Heart of Stone.”